Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the confirm=false preview / confirm=true apply two-step pattern, which is not derivable from annotations or schema defaults alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core action first and parameter notes after. The parenthetical fragments ('(ad_group_id required.)') are terse but each sentence carries information and there is no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the mutation's key mechanic (preview vs apply) is covered. However, for a destructive 7-parameter write with 0% schema documentation, the description leaves three parameters undocumented and offers no scoping or permission context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents status (enum values), ad_type (default), ad_group_id (required), and confirm (behavior), but leaves ad_id, account_id, and customer_id entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Changes ad status') and enumerates the valid status values, so the agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not distinguish itself from the generic sibling update_ad_status, leaving the Microsoft-specific routing to be inferred from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this versus update_ad_status, update_microsoft_ad_group_status, or update_microsoft_campaign_status. The only procedural guidance is the confirm preview flow, which is a parameter mechanic rather than a when-to-use rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.